Megan Murphy is on Joe Rogan

And where on earth have I said she shouldn't be allowed to express her opinions? That I want to 'shut her down'?

I'm expressing my view about what I read. That's not shutting someone down!

What's crappy is-

The underlying hint, which you've given more directly. That if you think X and you're a feminist then you're risking changes to abortion laws.

This is not a feminist issue. Passports, choice to vaccinate, mandating. None of that is specific to women. There's no difference for men/ women and both have a mix of views.

Framing it as a feminist issue and subtext of could impact abortion is manipulative. If you care about abortion access then you need to do/ think X. Currently seems like an argument that comes up a fair bit.

There are loads of arguments that come up around abortion and yes bodily autonomy is one.

That's not the reason it is legal though where it is. It's legal because of things like-

Consequences of it being illegal- impact on families, poverty esp child poverty, women's lives generally including health opportunities etc, the mental and physical health impacts that then need to be addressed.
There's an impact on men as well obviously.
And of course the massive toll of illegal abortions around injury, death. Girls/ women being forced as due to illegality there are plenty of people to do it.

Bottom line line is, being dispassionate about it, it saves a lot of money and reduces a lot of social issues. That's good for government.

Is there a real current popular push for changing abortion laws in aus? No idea. In England Wales while limits come up periodically, no desire to ban or make v difficult. NI just legalised which was huge.

I do think it's crappy.

Make the arguments against on own merits. Don't dangle threats at women and tell them a good feminist should agree with her because of that.

The law doesn't use one set of principles for one thing, and another for something else. Abortion in many places, including Canada, has been argued from a legal standpoint in terms of bodily autonomy in medical decision making, and also on the grounds of privacy.

If there are changes to the way the law thinks about those things, it can potentially affect other parts of the law.

Why shouldn't she put her thoughts out there to the public? It's not manipulative to show that something might have ongoing consequences that you might not want.

It is manipulative to try and shut people down because you don't like the conclusions of their arguments.

This discussion is proving the point though. Murphy, who has concerns about civil liberties around vaccine mandates - as dose the privacy commissioner of Canada, as do the major civil liberties organizations in Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK - is being called an anti-vaxxer as a result. And supposedly we are supposed to dismiss her views on feminism as well.

Isn't there something bizarre and disturbing about that?

I read this by her-

unherd.com/thepost/the-feminist-case-against-vaccine-mandates/

I find her framing of this as a feminist issue, and citing abortion. To argue her personal views about vaccine/s.

Really manipulative, ill advised and frankly crappy.

That's my opinion.

Polio vaccine is still administered along with a load of other stuff. There's a risk that with most not directly seeing consequences plus escalating anti vaxx stuff that people might turn their back on other vaccines.

As is happening here with measles. (The initial AW thing plus targeted scare stuff to various communities means uptake is really dropping off and outbreaks happening).

As far as I know, the polio vaccine was never mandated at least here in Canada. It was a terrible disease and no one knew how it was spread. The population was rightly fearful. Mothers were desperate to protect their children so there was no need for the government to force uptake. Limited initial supply meant that not everyone could be vaccinated at once.

Covid is a different kettle of fish from polio and Meghan Murphy's concerns as reported here are worth consideration and discussion. So to are her views on feminism.

Jonas Salk worked on the polio vaccine for 2.5 years. The whole world worked on the COVID vaccines, so the fast timing if it isn’t a surprise. If Salk had been that little bit faster or had more manpower to speed it up, my mum would have got the vaccine instead of at 2 being too young for the first round of polio vaccine, so she caught polio while her vaccinated older sister didn’t. When you have something effective early adoption all the way.

Embarrassing thanks! I didn't know that.

Info if anyone is interested-

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991

Really interesting!

People don't change do they.

I suppose smallpox was the first, vaccines were totally new thing.

That it's still happening after all the years of vaccines being used widely is... Not sure quite what but not great!

Well, I have just explained the concept, so you will have to be more explicit. As long as there is significant social benefit, and opening schools and the economy is definitely significant social benefit. I see it as equivalent to seatbelts, drink driving laws and all the other vaccine mandates we already have. There are valid exemptions, and australia has anecdotally put a LOT of effort into supporting people with needle phobias. This set up means my immune compromised aunt can work and partake in society, and a million equivalent cases; it’s looking after people.

I find that shocking but I keep seeing people who seem to be saying that, and no one seems willing to explain how they understand the concept.

This is another of these instances where the left seems to want to take this very authoritarian approach and dismiss any other position, even quite moderate ones, as morally reprehensible.
So you’re saying choosing to opt out not only increases the risk for everyone else as you’re more likely to catch and transmit it, increases the strain on the hospital system, but you are relying on everyone else to take the small risk of taking the vaccine to manage those things and your personal exposure as it affects the overall level of virus in society, as well as our freedoms. That’s pretty ultimate selfishness, personally. I support benefits for people who are briefly down on their luck, have limitations on working like conditions , age, caring responsibilities. Not for healthy adults who can’t be arsed. I support vaccine mandates, and if you want to be special and refuse because you feel you personally are lower risk and because you think every one else can take the risk for you then you do get restrictions on employment etc here. Seems very fair to me!

Many many drugs and devices go through all the normal testing procedures, but still turn out to have problems. Most of the time these come out in the first year or two. Most of the time these are not totally horrible either, they are contraindications, or side-effects that weren't picked up earlier. Occasionally it's something more serious.

This is totally predictable when you take a new drug and start giving it to huge numbers of people. There will sometimes be things testing didn't pick up. Doctors are aware of it, and this is why many prefer to keep using more well known meds, and only use the new ones when it looks like there will be a significant advantage over old ones. Once there is a little more experience with the medication they are more inclined to prescribe it and switch patients if the new one still seems better.

It's really not crazy or stupid to be wary of really new medications, even under the best possible conditions.

This is another of these instances where the left seems to want to take this very authoritarian approach and dismiss any other position, even quite moderate ones, as morally reprehensible.

Ha ha but please don't go, it's very easily done, and I'm sure the 'real' Meghan Murphy would be the first to applaud you for holding up your hands

Umm. The very first links when I looked up Meghan Murphy Canadian vaccine were for a woman who was a care home worker and pregnant, and like pps had said it said she’s not anti vaxx and has had others so it seemed to be the right person, but it does look like it’s a completely different woman (& doesn’t have an h in Megan) @Floisme www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5856370
That is rather embarrassing! Ignore all my comments!! Except those about vaccine mandates particularly in australia But I’m going to slink away now to not derail this any further.

Are we sure we're all talking about the same Meghan Murphy? I know she's expressed a view on vaccine passports but I've not seen / cannot find anything about her being pregnant or about working in a care home. Of course this might be down to my googling skills and I'm happy to be corrected but I also can't remember her mentioning either in the Joe Rogan interview (plus she practically drank him under the table so um.... )

I also think she's normally pretty circumspect about her personal life having been doxxed and subjected to threats.

The Meghan Murphy I'm thinking of is spelt with an 'h'

Don’t conflate the protests around broad powers with the anti vaccine objectors. Different rationales, and much like brexit the anti vaxx protests had a lot of frustrated drivers as well as being anti the mandate.
The broad powers are pretty concerning and I wouldn’t vote for them, and don’t trust our government with them.

It may be a new vaccine in elements of it but you will have seen on this site alone great explanations of how much simply having funding accelerated the process, so all safety checks were completed. Also, we’ve never ever had this much data on a vaccine, with such huge take up. What we don’t have anywhere near enough data on is long COVID.

I would disagree given the level of protesting that's going on in Australia.There are a lot of people who are very concerned about this. And frankly if people are not concerned about legislation giving such concentrated powers to ministers, they should be. It's like people don't read history.

But people may be ok with requirements in a healthcare setting, whereas not so much for everyone in any kind of employment.

People may be ok when there are exemptions for conscientious objection, but not so much when there isn't.

People may be ok with a more established vaccine that's been around for a while, but less sure about a very new one, using new tech.

People may feel differently about mandates for a vaccine that has a significant benefit for an illness that has very high risks, but less so about one that has less significant benefits and for diseases which are not so high risk, or which are really very low risk for some, such as children and teens.

Civil liberties principles are always most difficult when they mean we can't make people do something we might really prefer that they do.

Are you aware that we have broad vaccine mandates anyway, and most of us don’t see it as infringing our liberties? All children must be vaccinated to attend school. All staff at aged care facilities must be vaccinated and annually for the flu. I’m completely comfortable with this vaccine also being mandatory and so is nearly everyone I know. It is making a significant difference on hospitalisation rates ie effective.

What is the evidence that mandates are not effective? I’m in oz and nobody can turn up to work at an aged care home without up to date vaccines including flu, and now nobody can step on for work who’s not vaccinated. I cannot go into my office building until I’ve had my second dose. It seems perfectly effective, in ensuring safe environments for vulnerable people, and also in tipping people who weren’t sure over the line to get vaccinated, which has the benefits of flow on transmission reduction as well as less severe incidences, both of which reduce the pressure on hospitals.

What's going on in Australia is a really good example of the dangers in these kinds of mandates.

One of the things I always notice in this is that many people now, especially young ones, seem to have very little awareness of what kinds of balancing are required in public mandates about things like receiving vaccinations or other medical treatments. Whether it's mandated directly or forced by government legislation that says you lose your job, even if you work alone in the woods or on a farm, if you don't do what they want.

There is a very high bar for this kind of thing and in in most countries like the UK, Oz, Canada, the US, has only been possible because of emergency measures mandates. It's notable that Australia is now looking to push through legislation that will give the health minister unprecedented powers to make health orders even when not under a state of emergency.

That is where this stuff is headed. Justifying very authoritarian actions by the state that violate what have been legal principles about things like medical decision making, justified for "the public good".

But as far as this vaccine in particular. People hoped that it would be much more effective in preventing transmission, and therefor by having large numbers of people vaccinated it would really just make the virus rare. This allowed people, in their minds anyway, to justify the idea that the state should use strong measures to force people into getting the vaccine, even though it's such a new drug (new drugs tend to be the ones that will have some unexpected effects which is why many doctors avoid prescribing them until they have been around for a bit, if they can.)

Except that it doesn't. There are a fair number of breakthrough cases and while it reduces transmission, there can still be quite a lot. It also makes it more likely there will be asymptomatic transmission. Diseases that respond best to vaccination are things like smallpox - still the only human disease ever extinguished. They need to have a vaccine that is pretty much completely effective, a very short incubation period, slow rate of mutation, and very obvious symptoms. That is the opposite of covid and similar viruses.

So changes are they it will be with us permanently, unless you want to go total isolationist.

So mandates for vaccination should be weighed against a scenario where you still have covid around, maybe a fair bit. It's not at all clear that the difference between most people choosing to vaccinate in this scenario, and the authoritarian measures required to get everyone vaccinated, will have much effect overall, especially as it also tends to affect people's attitudes negatively.

I was more concerned with Joe R's attitude to beating Covid - you just have to 'have plenty of exercise and take vitamin tablets'

Tell that to the medical professionals who have died from Covid, mate.

But MM's description of her Twitter bans was chilling - banned for asking 'what is the actual difference between men, and trans-women?'

Such a good question. Because the answer is, obviously, nothing

I used to vote (in the US ) solely on abortion rights. Now after the medical fascism imposed by the left, I will never vote for them ever again. Or at least—it will take a very long time to trust them. I thought they were the party of personal and bodily freedom, I’ve seen how very wrong I was.

I suppose a question could be-

If polio or smallpox came back here. And there were a contingent of people, a fair number of people refusing vaccine. Would that be different?

I find that those who are nope to Corona tend to be perfectly happy with those. Apparently it's different.